1. Title, director, and release year? Food, Inc., Robert Kenner (2008)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses mainly on the idea that we as consumers don’t really know where our food comes from and how it is made. We like to think we do to an extent, but are kept in the dark on the specifics.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The sustainability problem drawn out in this film stems from a political standpoint. We as consumers are kept in the dark about many of the specifics regarding our food and the process it goes through during its production. Regulations on food are often poor and the actual carrying out of these regulations can be even worse. This can lead to the processing of infected food for innocent people to eat.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found the most compelling aspect of the film to be the comparison between the small-scale farmer and the larger, industrial scaled farmer. In the case of the smaller-scaled farmer there was much more time and energy paid to the attention of the finer details and better treatment of animals, much moreso than that of the larger-scaled farmer. The smaller-scaled farmer worked hard to produce quality over quantity, something that is lacking not only in the larger-scaled farmer, but in most aspects of our society today.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I have always been skeptical of farming and food processing of all kinds in America and this film only solidified my beliefs even moreso.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Does organic really matter? I guess it is better to eat something labeled as organic than not, but it seems like regardless of what you eat it will be contaminated to some degree. I would like to find out more about this and what is being done to correct thing, if anything.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is directed towards the naïve consumer who never really thought about the food he or she ingests on a daily basis. The film definitely makes you think twice the next time you go to the grocery store. It really seems to hit home when it is something that noticeably impacts your life each and everyday.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The points of intervention suggested in the film focused mainly on the consumer scale. It urged people to think twice about what is safe to eat. What you buy speaks to what you support. The more consumers who question their food, the stronger push there will be tor stricter regulations for producing it.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think the film would have valued from more shock value information dealing with the humane practices, or lack there of, that farmers practice when dealing with animals. People are often suckers for animals and animal cruelty and are easily drawn in by such scenarios.
1. Title, director, and release year?
Food, Inc., Robert Kenner (2008)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses mainly on the idea that we as consumers don’t really know where our food comes from and how it is made. We like to think we do to an extent, but are kept in the dark on the specifics.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The sustainability problem drawn out in this film stems from a political standpoint. We as consumers are kept in the dark about many of the specifics regarding our food and the process it goes through during its production. Regulations on food are often poor and the actual carrying out of these regulations can be even worse. This can lead to the processing of infected food for innocent people to eat.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found the most compelling aspect of the film to be the comparison between the small-scale farmer and the larger, industrial scaled farmer. In the case of the smaller-scaled farmer there was much more time and energy paid to the attention of the finer details and better treatment of animals, much moreso than that of the larger-scaled farmer. The smaller-scaled farmer worked hard to produce quality over quantity, something that is lacking not only in the larger-scaled farmer, but in most aspects of our society today.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I have always been skeptical of farming and food processing of all kinds in America and this film only solidified my beliefs even moreso.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Does organic really matter? I guess it is better to eat something labeled as organic than not, but it seems like regardless of what you eat it will be contaminated to some degree. I would like to find out more about this and what is being done to correct thing, if anything.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is directed towards the naïve consumer who never really thought about the food he or she ingests on a daily basis. The film definitely makes you think twice the next time you go to the grocery store. It really seems to hit home when it is something that noticeably impacts your life each and everyday.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The points of intervention suggested in the film focused mainly on the consumer scale. It urged people to think twice about what is safe to eat. What you buy speaks to what you support. The more consumers who question their food, the stronger push there will be tor stricter regulations for producing it.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think the film would have valued from more shock value information dealing with the humane practices, or lack there of, that farmers practice when dealing with animals. People are often suckers for animals and animal cruelty and are easily drawn in by such scenarios.